[Leaderboard] JamesMuddy vs .Thar

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Rules:
All Leaderboard rules apply.
First to 3 votes or most votes by March 22th, 11:59PM PDT wins.
All voters must elaborate on their votes.
Both contestants and myself have the right to refuse votes, but must explain why we don't accept it.
Written cards are allowed. (Must be in written format, cards with blank pictures are not acceptable)
Create a Level 4 monster with an undersupported type.

Rewards:
The winner gets a rep from the loser.
All voters get a rep for voting.

Card A

Once per turn, if your opponent activates a Spell card: You can discard 1 card (from your hand); negate the activation of that card and destroy it, then afterwards deal 500 damage to your opponent. This card cannot attack the turn this effect is activated.

 

Card B

Unless you control another Dinosaur-Type monster, this card's original ATK becomes 1000. If your opponent controls 3 or more monsters, this card cannot declare an attack. When this card is destroyed by battle and send to the Graveyard: You can Special Summon 1 Level 4 or lower Dinosaur-Type monster from your hand, except "Jurrac's Screech".

[BtanH]

Card A - Generic spell negation with minimal cost. Also does some burn, and has decent stats. Nice picture.
Also doesn't add any support by itself to the type. Not a huge fan of the generic spell negation. It's like a Koa'Ki Meiru Wall that discards (which can be beneficial) rather than tributes. I'm also not a fan of burn damage that is tacked on.

Card B - Is a Jurrac card. Which is an archetype of fire dinosaurs. It is a Wind Dinosaur. Not really a big fan of this card because of the archetype business and the second effect is weird. Why would the opponent have 3 or more monsters stop it from attacking?

My vote goes to A because I like the card art.

[Northern Sage]

Card A is a walking Magic Jammer with an added burn. I can't say I understand the flavor well, aside from Rock Stun associations. It's pretty effective, even if it won't live long.

Card B… restrictions make it almost useless as a beater. Nothing but a fleeting association with the Archetype. Aiding a SS from the hand is generally pretty meh, and it doesn't help the card much.

Vote for Card A.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

2-0 Card A

[Excalibur the Divine]

Card A: Good idea, some OCG errors though

Card B: Underpowered, because of all of the restrictions on the card.

 

Vote goes to: Card A

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Card A: Good idea, some OCG errors though

Card B: Underpowered, because of all of the restrictions on the card.

 

Vote goes to: Card A

 

You need to elaborate on why card A is a good idea. (Look at the other two posters)

Otherwise, I'm going to reject this.

 

 

(As a reminder, Nai or myself reserve the right to reject votes and/or undo any acceptance/denial of votes in this section.)

[Nathanael D. Striker]

And to add to that Sakura, I have that same right in all Leaderboard matches (though Sakura/Nai still have final say).

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Yeah, that's also true. 

Should note that in the section rules that you indeed have the right to reject votes in Leaderboards (though myself/Zextra/Nai can overrule things if needed).

 

Normally, we don't have to exercise that power, so... 

 

---

With that said...

 

Card A:

 

I don't particularly like how it's generic OPT Spell negation, and also burns (although a small amount).

Though if we factor OCG in, it'd really only work on your turn (should opponent activate a Quick-Play or something); and the relevancy of that attack lock becomes important. 

 

For the purposes of this, I'll assume the intent was to work on your turn only.

 

As much as I'd like to say that a hard OPT would be needed; the chances of your opponent triggering 2+ Spells on your turn is rather low, so you wouldn't need a 2nd copy to do that. 

 

Card B:

 

Naming-wise, this would qualify for Jurrac support (since it would [presumably] have the katakana string ジュラック in its name); but it breaks a lot of their conventions; being that it's WIND as opposed to FIRE.

 

Its attack restriction kills it though; since it basically says "if your opponent already set up, then don't even bother attacking with this card until you can clear the way". Then we have its first effect, which can be averted in certain cases, but otherwise doesn't help it. 

 

It can float another Dinosaur when it dies, yes; but again not really helpful to the Deck it's supposed to belong to. 

If anything, it's more of a stranger (name convention is broken, and I believe Jurracs already have a member based on a pteradactyl)

 

 

So yeah, card A gets it. 

[Nathanael D. Striker]

And in the rematch, Thar upsets JamesMuddy with a 3-0 win. What is going on here? o.o

[Thar]

And in the rematch, Thar upsets JamesMuddy with a 3-0 win. What is going on here? o.o

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

GG, James.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

And in the rematch, Thar upsets JamesMuddy with a 3-0 win. What is going on here? o.o

I would most likely attribute it to JM deviating from how Jurracs were designed; and more/less giving it too many drawbacks to really be useful outside of Skill Drain.dek or whatever.

 

To be fair, the ATK reduction effect would've been enough of a counterbalance for 2K stats.

That, or some attack restriction; but certainly not both.

 

 

In any case, consider this as the start of a comeback, Thar; you earned it.